RAM CHARAN Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 21st Nov. 1973 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, certified copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as follows. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to grove plot No. 1076 area 0.70 acres situate in village Aktahia Tappa Nagwa Tikar, Parg. Silhat, tahsil and district Deoria. The petitioners claimed to be the bhumidhars and in possession over the aforesaid grove. In the basic year a portion of the said grove plot i.e. plot No. 1076 M/00.40 acres was recorded in the name of the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 Kishore and Bikau, while the remaining area i.e. plot no. 1076/00.30 acres was recorded in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners, on coming to know about the aforesaid wrong entries in the name of the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4, filed an objection under Sec. 9-A (2) before the Consolidation Officer praying that the name of the opposite parties no. 3 & 4 be scored out and they be held to be the bhumidhars and their names be recorded as such. The said objection was opposed by opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4. The Consolidation Officer, however, did not enter into the merits of the case, but dismissed the objection vide his order dt. 25-12-1967, merely on the ground that the objection was not maintainable before him and since the petitioners had not filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer the same cannot be looked into on merits. He did not call for the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the objection which was filed before him under Sec. 9-A (2) of the Act and preferred to reject it on the aforesaid ground. Aggrieved by the said order dt. 25-12-1967 the petitioners preferred an appeal which was heard and dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide his order dated 12-8-1969 holding the appeal to be not maintainable. The petitioners, thereupon, filed the revision against the said order which was heard and decided by the Dy. Director of Consolidation by an order dated 16-12-1970 on the ground that the objection filed by the petitioners was not competent as it could not be filed before the Consolidation Officer. He also held that the objection could be considered on merits if it was filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. After the dismissal of the revision on the aforesaid ground the petitioners filed an objection under Sec. 9-A (2) before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 7-1-1971 a true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure '2' to this writ petition. The said objection contains a prayer regarding the condonation of delay in filing the objection on the ground specifically enumerated in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the objection. The petitioners had mentioned that they had been labouring under the wrong legal advice and had been pursuing deligently the remedy for the determination of the title with regard to the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the said objection vide order dated 30th August, 1971, holding that the objection is not maintainable under Sec. 9 of the Act. He did not enter into the merits of the grounds seeking condonation of delay in filing the objection. He also appears to have based his order on some report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer which does not relate to the plot in question and, as such, his order cannot be taken to be an order passed on the faets of the ease and is altogether erroneous. It appears that the Consolidation Officer had not taken care to look into the record itself and cursorily decided the ease. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners filed the revision which was rejected by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Deoria vide order dt. 21-11-1975. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has refused to condone the delay in filing the objection by mentioning wrongly that in the objection dated 7-1-1971 no grounds have been shown by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay. A perusal of the objection, true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure '2' would indicate that the petitioners had, in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the aforesaid objection, very clearly stated the grounds on which he sought condonation of delay. They have asserted that under the wrong legal advice they had filed objection and had been pursuing their remedy. This order dated 21-11-1977, certified copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition, has been impugned by the petitioners.

(3.) IN the result the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21-11-1973 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Deoria, certified copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition, is quashed. The Dy. Director of Consolidation is directed to restore the revision and decide the same on merits in the light of the observations made above. IN the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.